My name is Tom Noonan, and I am running for a seat on the USPA Board of Directors as a National Director in this year’s upcoming election. I would like to use this forum to provide my perspective on some of the issues facing our membership and our organization today.

Airport Access: There is currently a movement within the FAA to create a nationalized standard for Parachute Landing Areas (PLAs) that is intended to stabilize and resolve the numerous airport access issues that are currently being debated at municipal airports across the country. This new standard, while well intentioned currently has the potential to shut down a small number of existing dropzones that have operated without incident for years, as well as hinder potentially new dropzones from opening that do not meet it’s unique standards. I have spent the last four years pursuing the opening of a dropzone in the state of New Hampshire, and with the tremendous help of the USPA Executive Director and Government Relations Director, I have succeeded in working directly with the highest level members of the FAA, including, at the time he was in office, the chief administrator of the FAA personally. I bring up this issue to illustrate two attributes that I believe that I bring to the table in this area, 1) my resilience in pursing a just cause for our sport to bring a new dropzone to life despite the considerable hurdles I have faced over the last four years, as well as 2) it illustrates my ability to work with government offices in a professional and courtesy way, and being able to develop considerably positive working relationships with some of the key members of the FAA involved in skydiving oversight nationally.

Wing Suit Rating: As I stated in another thread, I am approaching this topic with an open mind. Both sides of the table bring valid points to the table, and while each side has presented their perspectives with passion and purpose, I believe that ultimately, myself, or any member that is elected to the board this term, needs to approach such a decision willing to consider all opinions and possibilities of either out come and thus vote on the issue with the best interests of the collective membership as their basis for their vote. Right off the bat though, I still see some need for clarification of the rating process if it is to pass. Specifically, I keep coming back to the issue that if this WS rating is implemented, as the rules are currently written and proposed, a prospective wingsuiter with >500 jumps can still just go buy a wingsuit and jump it themselves without any FFC training, so in effect, there would remain a big gap in standardization if that were to remain in place. There are numerous deviations of this question that I would also want to address in session and with experts in the field if elected, that focus on a list of “what if scenarios” if the motion were to pass. To the other side of the table, those that would oppose such a regulation, I would ask, in the grand scheme of things, if this process were to pass, (to pull a quote from the Presidential debate), I would ask, honestly and introspectively, would you really be that worse off four years from now, if the implementation of such a rating were put in place? Could it be considered additional bureaucracy? Of course it could, but at the end of the day, would additional bureaucracy that may save lives, be a worthwhile consideration? And would it legitimately affect your day to day life on the DZ?

My background in WS is so far two jumps in total, but I am looking to make more this winter, and while I am a trainer by trade, I do not ever see myself (at this point) traveling down that WS Instructor rating path. But for those of you that would consider it now or in the future, I would suggest a consideration of liability of training. Of every type of course I teach, they all share one commonality, the syllabus used is a unified syllabus endorsed by my national organization USPA, and in the case of tandem courses, additionally by the manufacturer of the equipment itself. It is conceivable that some day, some WS Instructor will be sued by someone they trained, and I think anyone that is risk adverse, would see the use of a standardized syllabus endorsed by USPA that is also verified for currency as an instructor, would only be an asset if that WS instructor was ever called to answer for their training.

At the end of the day though, as it pertains to this question, I would simply ask anyone casting votes this year in the election to make sure you are voting for candidates that are well rounded and will serve a multitude of your needs on the board, not just to vote the WS rating in or out. To do so, to put someone in office jst to vote on the WS rating, you may find that you put someone in place to cast this vote in your favor, but then find they oppose other issues that you believe in that are more pressing to your day to day skydiving.

Canopy Incidents There have been a sustained, if not rise, in number of canopy related incidents each year during the last few years. To me this is the most alarming issue of our day to day skydiving and one that needs to continue to be on the forefront of our collective consciousness until we figure out a way to drastically reduce and eventually eliminate these types of incidents. For me, the cause of quite a few of these incidents stems from two very distinct, yet very real scenarios and causes.

1) It’s going to come to no surprise to anyone that a lot of these incidents occur to people that (at varying stages of experience levels) find themselves under parachutes that they are not prepared to fly under all conditions, that find themselves in a corner (literally and/figuratively) and making bad, sometimes fatal decisions as a result. While there is no universally perfect answer, and there never will be just one answer, there does exist in my mind a reasonable consideration for a step in the right direction. And that is a step towards accountability. For example, today I currently hold a USPA Pro Rating that I qualified for under a 103 sq ft canopy. After completing all my pre-reqs, my S&TA signed off on my application, essentially taking accountability that he confirmed my ability to meet the criteria, and thus, I earned a Pro Rating. While some smaller national organizations lay out a blanket national level wingloading chart and requirement (and I think that is a great idea, by the way), for a membership the size of USPA, there may be a more constructive step to create a Pro Rating like proficiency card that must be achieved prior to being able to jump a parachute of a certain size of type. Imagine if every S&TA in the country had to take responsibility in signing off on these cards, it would ensure atleast one verifiable level of skill set verification before someone is allowed to jump a parachute they may or may not be ready for. It could be that this process, catches that person before they get too far down the path of bad canopy choices and actions.

2) We need to look further as an organization down the path of sports psychology, to understand why we as jumpers continue to make bad decisions that can lead to our deaths and the deaths of those in the sky with us. For example, every one of us learns from Day One what our landing priorities are, and none of us are taught that landing into the wind is the primary priority. Yet, each year, we see skydivers making low turns to get back into the wind that either break them, or kill them. I firmly believe that we need to up the efforts nationally, to figure out why. For example, when a jumper is long on a spot, yet able to land safely downwind in a field, we need to uncover why so often that jumper makes the mistake of turning low and injuring themselves or killing themselves. They KNOW they are not supposed to do that. They KNOW it will have catastrophic results, yet they CANNOT STOP themselves from doing it. We need to understand the “Why?” better. People like Brian Germain and Rob Laidlaw have already done a lot of work in the area of psychology and sports psychology, and I if I were elected, I would push to put more resources behind that investigation with Brian and Rob, as well as looking at new directions in that area. My point being, our syllabus information contains life saving information, yet more and more people seem to be unable to process that information to effect their survival when needed, and we need to figure out why and what we can do to change that outcome.

In the end however, like I said, while there is no one universal answer, there is one universal truth in all this. And that is, as long as we suspend ourselves under parachutes, we will be at risk for these types of occurrences. And at the end of the day, while some would say “this or that won’t work, so we shouldn’t do it”, the universal truth is that if we do nothing, nothing will change. So, we have to look to do something if we want to see any positive change, and we need to look at new ideas, and be willing to implement them knowing that at least if we try something reasonable, that there exists a chance for change for the better. Yet, if we don’t implement new ideas, we ensure that the status quo will remain.

Vote By Name: There was one item that I did not agree with at all during my time on the BOD as the SE regional director and that was the item of secret balloting. It often came in two forms from what I remember, 1) on not so important items, it was simply the recording of the cumulative yes or no numbers, yet for people like Gary Peek and myself, on issue we believed in, we elected to vote by name in the meeting minutes (raising both hands to vote) so that the membership would be able to see our votes and we could stand behind them in the pubic realm. 2) The other anonymous voting used was the hand written anonymous vote, collected and tallied. I never understood this process, despite it being explained to me numerous times. The idea that some votes are so sensitive that a BOD member may choose not to vote their conscience because of the possible repercussions of their vote being made public, baffles me. To me, I don’t see how publishing names of votes on serious items would hurt their ability to work with others on the BOD and their constituents. If I am elected, I would make every effort to throw that process out completely. While I know it can be time consuming to record everyones name for all the day to day USPA items voted on that must be done, I firmly believe that the membership deserves to be able to know exactly what their BOD members are voting for, and even what votes they abstain from, because sometimes simply abstaining is detrimental to vote out comes. If I am elected to the BOD, you will never have to question my votes on sensitive issues because I will vote by name and I will stand behind my votes, all of them.

Paying It Forward: I’d like to think that there are a lot of reasons to vote for me in this upcoming USPA election, that I bring a lot to the table so to speak, with a robust and diverse resume in our sport, but I think one of the pillars of my decision to run is my belief that we all must pay it forward. Whether it’s making a fun jump with a newly licensed jumper on your own dime because you see them doing only solos because they can’t find anyone to jump with, or sharing the growth of your skydiving careers with others, we are all bound (in my opinion) to help others succeed in the sport. In the last six years that I have been full time in the sport, I have been very fortunate to have been involved in a lot of skydiving related projects and events, and one of the things I am most proud of during that time, is that whenever I could share what I was doing with others, I did. Whether it was connecting a trainer with a team that needed to run a course, bring someone on an international trip, or sharing my personal contacts with the FAA in airport access issues that I developed over the last four years, I am always looking for ways to help my fellow skydivers, and I willing to do so at a moments notice when given the opportunity to do so. I think that quality is essential for your BOD, to be willing at a moments notice to be willing and able to pay it forward for the membership and I know I will bring that quality to the table if I am elected, because it is the only way I know how to operate.

Finance & Budget I mentioned in another thread the need for USPA to have solid financial oversight and with a term on the board seeing Doc Lee in action, I can tell you, without question, he is the undisputed heavy weight champion of the world when it comes to overseeing USPA’s financial viability. Safety and Training and Competition committees are the most public in terms of interest and action it seems, but the foundation for it all, for our membership organization as a whole is F&B. Eventually Doc Lee will want to step down though, and when that time comes, whomever it is that takes the reigns, myself, or anyone, it is in our best interest to have an understudy, a mentorship of this intricate and vital process shift over time, not at the change of hands at the first board meeting that Doc Lee doesn’t run for re-election. With my business background, working eight years in the financial services arena working specially with institutional (corporate) retirement plan administration and investment services, I have a rather firm grasp of what is needed to continue the work of Doc Lee if I am elected and allowed to do so.

In closing: I ask for your consideration when voting for the next term of the USPA Board Of Directors as a National Director. I believe that I possess the experience, resume and working relationships with USPA employees, the FAA, my would be fellow BOD members, and the membership that I have interacted with thus far in the last thirteen years, to be able to effectively work for the membership to ensure that our organization continues to grow and evolve into a direction that we, the collective membership can be proud.

I thank you for your time in reading all of this and your consideration in voting for me in this upcoming election to represent you for the next three years as one of your national directors.

I have never met Tom Noonan. On the other hand, I have read the entire thread in the Lake Winnepesaukee Aviation (or whatever) forum discussing the objections (mainly by one person) to his trying to start a skydiving operation up there.

He is the soul of politeness and reasonableness in that thread, and answers points that are brought up in that thread directly, and repeatedly. If you're looking for information on how he behaves in situations where he's attacked, it's worth looking there.

for a membership the size of USPA, there may be a more constructive step to create a Pro Rating like proficiency card that must be achieved prior to being able to jump a parachute of a certain size of type. Imagine if every S&TA in the country had to take responsibility in signing off on these cards, it would ensure atleast one verifiable level of skill set verification before someone is allowed to jump a parachute they may or may not be ready for. It could be that this process, catches that person before they get too far down the path of bad canopy choices and actions.

Hmm would have to put some more thought into this, before I could get on board, but IF something like this was implemented then I think Bill Von's downsizing checklist would be an excellent place to start.

You had me until you said S+TA. It's amazes me that even people running for Director positions think that S+TA's are always highly qualified professionals. There are no qualifications to be an S+TA other than getting an RD (usually on the recomendation of a DZO) to appoint you. The quality of S+TA's runs the gamut from the highly qualified down to the DZO's organic rubber stamp. They are also usually unpaid volunteers that are easy to replace if they choose to be problematic for the DZO. I would suggest that "Chief Instructor" would be a much better fit and it would ensure the person getting the appointment would at least have some instructional qualifications and responsibility to USPA.

You had me until you said S+TA. It's amazes me that even people running for Director positions think that S+TA's are always highly qualified professionals. There are no qualifications to be an S+TA other than getting an RD (usually on the recomendation of a DZO) to appoint you. The quality of S+TA's runs the gamut from the highly qualified down to the DZO's organic rubber stamp. They are also usually unpaid volunteers that are easy to replace if they choose to be problematic for the DZO. I would suggest that "Chief Instructor" would be a much better fit and it would ensure the person getting the appointment would at least have some instructional qualifications and responsibility to USPA.

But isn't a Chief Instructor a DZO Appointee as well? I say add a few specific requirements to be an S&TA, for example, hold or at least in the past held 2 of the Instructor Ratings (not just Coach and Tandem but two I's). No less than 5 years in the sport, and no less than 1000 jumps. Hold a D license, hold or have held a PRO Rating, competed even regionally in any comp. These are just examples, but we would at least get some experience requirements.

+1 on the S&TA piece. Far too many are already unqualified, absent, and overloaded in their day to day responsibilities. They are over worked and under paid. But I disagree on the chief instructor doing it as well. This person works directly for the DZO which equals a conflict of interest. Remember, we're not just talking about up jumpers. Often, the most blatent violators are staff - tandem vidiots come to mind.

I proposed a while back that S&TAs be hired and paid by USPA. And was flamed for it. But I still believe that it's the only way to get an unbiased referree out there that has nothing to gain or lose by grounding someone that needs it.

They should at least be appointed by the BOD, not just the RD. All recommended should have to be voted on by the EC, and then confirmed by the full BOD at the next meeting. They can act as S&TA's in the duration.

Finance & Budget I mentioned in another thread the need for USPA to have solid financial oversight and with a term on the board seeing Doc Lee in action, I can tell you, without question, he is the undisputed heavy weight champion of the world when it comes to overseeing USPA’s financial viability. Safety and Training and Competition committees are the most public in terms of interest and action it seems, but the foundation for it all, for our membership organization as a whole is F&B. Eventually Doc Lee will want to step down though, and when that time comes, whomever it is that takes the reigns, myself, or anyone, it is in our best interest to have an understudy, a mentorship of this intricate and vital process shift over time, not at the change of hands at the first board meeting that Doc Lee doesn’t run for re-election. With my business background, working eight years in the financial services arena working specially with institutional (corporate) retirement plan administration and investment services, I have a rather firm grasp of what is needed to continue the work of Doc Lee if I am elected and allowed to do so.

You had me until you said S+TA. It's amazes me that even people running for Director positions think that S+TA's are always highly qualified professionals.

Hi Jim,

I am only speaking from personal experience. In the last six years, I have probably visited 30 dropzones. We have approximately 300 DZs in the US today, so my sample size is about 10%. Of that 10% of DZs I hav visited and or worked with, I would say that upwards of 70%-80% of them had S&TAs up to the task of doing their jobs well and doing them insplite of any potential negative fall out from their DZOs. Following that logical path, even if 20% of the S&TAs out there are unable to adopt such a practice in a program like this, that still means we potentially reach 80% of the S&TAs that can potentially lower canopy incidents through oversight. Even if it was only 50%, wouldn't a 50% decrease over the next 3 years be better than a 0% decrease in canopy incidents? Because if we do nothing, ithe decrease will stay at 0%.

As a side note, if in perhaps your area, there is actually a problem with your S&TAs, I would encourage you to contact your regioinal director and get their input. The RD is the one that ultimately makes the S&TA appointments based on recommendations from DZOs.

A Chief Instructor will not work in this process, only in that Chief Instructor is not a recognized USPA nomination or rating. For this to work with accountability from USPA, there would need to be some formal relationship with USPA and person (S&TA) overseeing the process.

I wanted to add this photo yesterday but I couldnt figure out how to reduce the size till today.

Here is a picture of myself (right) and Derek Thomas (left, of course....lol) holding the USPA flag at Everest Base Camp in 2010. I brought the flag half way around the world, and walked it up to 18450ft MSL for that picture becuase I am so grateful for what USPA has enabled me to do all these years.

The point I was trying to make was that S+TA’s currently have no required qualifications nor a specific training pathway in the Instructional hierarchy yet we keep trying to use them in making decisions where that training is needed. If you want professionals that will do a professional job they need to be trained and vetted by USPA. We have already turned over Pro Ratings, Canopy Control Instruction, License Approvals, Demo Approvals, and FAA Representative duties to S+TA’s and we are currently considering adding to those duties. Perhaps “Chief Instructor” is not the correct verbiage of what the position or person is but the qualifications of that position at any drop zone are well known and are some of the very least needed to be an effective S+TA. The current system of the DZO recommending someone and the RD signing off on it only leads to S+TA’s being beholden to the DZO and not to USPA or the average jumper. Every time the subject of S+TA qualifications comes up the silence from the Board is deafening. Yet we want S+TA’s to solve our current training problems. The general membership needs to know that the S+TA can actually provide guidance on safety topics and isn’t just there to arbitrarily enforce rules and push paper through headquarters. To do that they need to be respected for their demonstrated and proven qualifications.

I do appreciate your responding and since I am not a "1 issue" voter will certainly keep an open mind and vote for the people I think will do the best job. Thanks Tom!

The point I was trying to make was that S+TA’s currently have no required qualifications nor a specific training pathway in the Instructional hierarchy yet we keep trying to use them in making decisions where that training is needed. If you want professionals that will do a professional job they need to be trained and vetted by USPA. We have already turned over Pro Ratings, Canopy Control Instruction, License Approvals, Demo Approvals, and FAA Representative duties to S+TA’s and we are currently considering adding to those duties. Perhaps “Chief Instructor” is not the correct verbiage of what the position or person is but the qualifications of that position at any drop zone are well known and are some of the very least needed to be an effective S+TA. The current system of the DZO recommending someone and the RD signing off on it only leads to S+TA’s being beholden to the DZO and not to USPA or the average jumper. Every time the subject of S+TA qualifications comes up the silence from the Board is deafening. Yet we want S+TA’s to solve our current training problems. The general membership needs to know that the S+TA can actually provide guidance on safety topics and isn’t just there to arbitrarily enforce rules and push paper through headquarters. To do that they need to be respected for their demonstrated and proven qualifications.

I do appreciate your responding and since I am not a "1 issue" voter will certainly keep an open mind and vote for the people I think will do the best job. Thanks Tom!

Maybe the "At Large S&TA's can handle more, and the DZ S&TA's less. The Bod can approve the RD's recommendations for the "At Large" S&TA's in a region.

While in my inititial post, I wrote about my views on current issues that we are facing, here is a video resume so to speak, that give more information on my background in the sport and why I have chosen to run for office this term.

While in my inititial post, I wrote about my views on current issues that we are facing, here is a video resume so to speak, that give more information on my background in the sport and why I have chosen to run for office this term.

You had me until you said S+TA. It's amazes me that even people running for Director positions think that S+TA's are always highly qualified professionals.

Hi Jim,

I am only speaking from personal experience. In the last six years, I have probably visited 30 dropzones. We have approximately 300 DZs in the US today, so my sample size is about 10%. Of that 10% of DZs I hav visited and or worked with, I would say that upwards of 70%-80% of them had S&TAs up to the task of doing their jobs well and doing them insplite of any potential negative fall out from their DZOs. Following that logical path, even if 20% of the S&TAs out there are unable to adopt such a practice in a program like this, that still means we potentially reach 80% of the S&TAs that can potentially lower canopy incidents through oversight. Even if it was only 50%, wouldn't a 50% decrease over the next 3 years be better than a 0% decrease in canopy incidents? Because if we do nothing, ithe decrease will stay at 0%.

As a side note, if in perhaps your area, there is actually a problem with your S&TAs, I would encourage you to contact your regioinal director and get their input. The RD is the one that ultimately makes the S&TA appointments based on recommendations from DZOs.

A Chief Instructor will not work in this process, only in that Chief Instructor is not a recognized USPA nomination or rating. For this to work with accountability from USPA, there would need to be some formal relationship with USPA and person (S&TA) overseeing the process.

Thank you for the input

Has USPA (or you) considered giving I-E's all the same responsibilities ond duties as S&TA's? I realize that USPA is currently trying to weed-out a percentage of C-E's and has not decided to require all I-E's to take the IERC, but perhaps this could be an incentive for taking the IERC by making it part of the requirement, if not for C-E's, then for I-E's.

“Safety and Training Advisors are appointed by their Conference Directors to represent a Particular Drop Zone. (S+TA’s are expected to be regularly available at their drop zone to provide USPA services.) The Conference Director serves as Chief S+TA for his conference to support and assist his S+TA’s.”

“S+TA’s must hold current Instructor ratings, a D license, and must have made at least 50 freefalls within the previous 12 months. (This requirement however, like several others, may be waived by the Conference Director if necessary when making the appointment.)”

“The principal changes (between Area Safety Officer and Safety and Training Advisor) can be summarized by saying the old position of ‘policeman’ has been replaced by the new position of ‘Advisor’ states the S+TA manual. Old methods of intimidation are replaced with new methods of tactful education.”

These are quotes from the March 1985 issue of Parachutist when the S+TA program replaced the Area Safety Officer program. It looks like the original program was set up to ensure that qualified individuals were to be selected to ensure the integrity of the program. Perhaps it’s time to revisit the responsibilities and the appropriate selection of S+TA’s. The article lists a number of differences between the old ASO position and the then new S+TA position and some of the old requirements would seem to make sense in light of S+TA’s “At Large” and the responsibilities that S+TA's are now tasked with. Also the original ASO program was intended to be temporary until there were enough IE’s in the field. The article is a real good look at what the S+TA program was supposed to become.

SorrY, I didn't take his course, but my guess is that he knows what was passed. To quote USPA

Reminder for USPA Coach Examiners At the 2010 winter USPA Board meeting (almost two years ago), the board of directors passed the following motion regarding requirements for Coach Examiners:

"Move that all current Coach Examiners that have not previously attended an IERC [Instructor Examiner Rating Course] or AIC [Advanced Instructor Course] must successfully complete an IERC by July 1, 2012, in order to renew the Coach Examiner rating.”

I realize that you need to take the course for any new I-E ratings, but also know that it's not currently required for anyone with an existing rating.

SorrY, I didn't take his course, but my guess is that he knows what was passed. To quote USPA

Reminder for USPA Coach Examiners At the 2010 winter USPA Board meeting (almost two years ago), the board of directors passed the following motion regarding requirements for Coach Examiners:

"Move that all current Coach Examiners that have not previously attended an IERC [Instructor Examiner Rating Course] or AIC [Advanced Instructor Course] must successfully complete an IERC by July 1, 2012, in order to renew the Coach Examiner rating.”

I realize that you need to take the course for any new I-E ratings, but also know that it's not currently required for anyone with an existing rating.

To clear this up a bit, according to A USPA Staffer, all the current I/E's are also C-E's, so this would cover all the I/E's.

SorrY, I didn't take his course, but my guess is that he knows what was passed. To quote USPA

Reminder for USPA Coach Examiners At the 2010 winter USPA Board meeting (almost two years ago), the board of directors passed the following motion regarding requirements for Coach Examiners:

"Move that all current Coach Examiners that have not previously attended an IERC [Instructor Examiner Rating Course] or AIC [Advanced Instructor Course] must successfully complete an IERC by July 1, 2012, in order to renew the Coach Examiner rating.”

I realize that you need to take the course for any new I-E ratings, but also know that it's not currently required for anyone with an existing rating.

To clear this up a bit, according to A USPA Staffer, all the current I/E's are also C-E's, so this would cover all the I/E's.

Matt

Which USPA staff person told you that? Actually, while most I-E's are also C-E's, not all are. A lot of tandem I-E's are not. And in either case, the IERC is only necessary to renew the C-E rating, not any of the I-E ratings. The whole purpose of the requirement was to cull out a lot of C-Es.